Zen: Secular or Religious?

In this essay I want to discuss religious versus secular – secular meaning not religious – in the context of Zen, with respect to how these things are subjectively experienced, and how they affect your spiritual practice. However, before I do that I have to define a couple terms. After all, language describes our experience, but if we don’t examine our language we can actually limit our awareness of our experience.

To begin, let’s define spiritual as I just used it in the term “spiritual practice.” This word, for better or worse, has come to refer to the “pure” or popularly acceptable aspects of religion, such as morality or an interest in life’s deeper meaning. However, the word has implications that are completely inappropriate in Zen, including the idea that you possess an intangible, animating “spirit” inside your physical manifestation. Spiritual can also imply that there is an incorporeal “spirit world” existing alongside the physical one you occupy; Zen is completely agnostic about this matter, claiming instead that there are much more important things to worry about. Neither of these definitions of spiritual are appropriate for use in Zen. However, there is one more definition that I believe suits Zen’s purposes: of, or relating to, the sacred.

Now we have to define sacred for a Zen context. Essentially, something that is sacred is worthy of veneration – that is, inspired respect or awe. It is important to note that veneration is an experience of being inspired, not an act of obeisance that is imposed. People often feel things are sacred because they are connected with, or related to, God, or because the things are associated with their religious faith. However, it is also possible to feel respect or awe for the natural world, or for a system of practice that has freed you from suffering. In Zen, there is a great deal that is sacred; in fact, Zen encourages you to see everything as sacred. But more on that later.

So, let’s return to the question of whether (and in what way) Zen is religious or secular. There is no consensus out there as to exactly what religion means or is, so I’ll deal with this question by offering a number of things you are likely to assume are included in any particular religion, and then discussing whether (and in what way) that particular thing manifests in Zen – and therefore, where Zen falls on the spectrum between religious and secular.

Belief in and/or worship of a superhuman or supernatural being (or beings), who has some measure of influence over your life and well-being, and/or to whom you owe your existence. If this defines religion for you, then Zen is undeniably secular. Zen doesn’t oppose or deny the existence of God, or gods, or supernatural beings, so if you believe in them you are still welcome to practice Zen. However, Zen is not dependent on the existence of such beings, and is generally unconcerned about them. This may sound strange – not really caring whether God exists or not – but it reflects the reality of life for many people, who find it very difficult to believe in God, and who do not anticipate being able to verify his/her/its existence in this lifetime. Personally, I believe that if there is a God and I meet him in the afterlife, he will forgive my disbelief. I did my best.

Belief in a spirit or soul that dwells within and animates your body. In this case Zen is wholeheartedly secular, actually teaching you do not have a soul. It even teaches that believing you have an inherent essence is the root of many of your problems. However, the nature of our existence is very complex and subtle, so the Zen take is not as bleak as it might seem. It’s not that we either have a soul, or we are just organic machines with a delusion of importance. Even though Zen teaches there is no soul, it emphasizes that when you completely drop your self-concern, there is no real separation between you and the rest of the universe. You partake of universal being without having to possess your own particular parcel of it.

A system of morality. While people expect a religion to have a moral code, many people do not feel that you have to have a religion in order to have a system of morality. So, in this case, Zen could be called secular or religious in the fact that it has a moral code (many people don’t realize this; Zen’s moral guidelines are called the precepts). However, from a Zen point of view, the moral feeling or intuition that arises in secular people is evidence of the deep universal truths of interdependence and no-self. It is not arbitrary that most people end up with moral feelings and a general desire to do good and not harm. In this sense you might say Zen is religious in viewing morality as being inspired by something deeper and more universal than personal choice – although Zen does not see it as being inspired by God(s).

A set of practices and/or principles. Zen definitely has lots of practices and principles; you could study it full time for a lifetime and never come to the end of them. This fact doesn’t really make Zen religious or secular. Religions have sets of practices and principles, but so do professions, and the arts. However, “religious” principles and practices are often given a special weight by the people who ascribe to them, compared to the principles and practices of other disciplines. This is usually because they are held to be universally applicable to all people, or because they are the instructions and teachings of a divine being. In this case, Zen falls more on the secular side. You can engage whatever Zen practices and principles you want to, but none of them are a moral obligation (except basic morality itself), and nobody’s keeping track of what you do or don’t do. You verify for yourself the truth or utility of what Zen offers.

An institution created by humans and passed down through time. Religions typically include traditions, organizations, sectarian definitions, buildings, professional religious people or teachers, and a sense of group identity. Although religious groups tend to split and evolve, at any given time a particular religion usually has a relatively stable sense of itself, its history, and its future. Some secular disciplines and organizations are similar (such as the martial arts, or fraternal orders), but the sense of belonging to an institution (large or small) generally reaches its most potent in the case of religion. There are certainly substantial institutions related to Zen that include all of the components listed above. However, there is a certain ambivalence in Zen toward its own institutions: they are viewed as being useful in a practical sense, but it is acknowledged that they can end up demanding so much time, attention, resources and allegiance that you can lose track of the essence of Zen: the practice and study itself. In this sense Zen is religious in having institutions to which you can belong, but it leans toward the secular in seeing institutions as being somewhat of a necessary evil. The persistent classic standard is that of a Zen master meditating all alone in a cave until others join him. You don’t need any stuff in order to do Zen practice.

A community of practitioners. Generally speaking, one of the main things that differentiates a religion from a philosophy is that a group of people regularly gather to study and practice the activities and principles associated with a religion, but not a philosophy. In this sense Zen is very religious. From the time Buddhism began 2500 years ago, a strong emphasis has been placed on the importance of a community of practitioners, or sangha. As a matter of fact, according to traditional Buddhist teachings, you can’t practice Buddhism without others. Well, technically you can, but you won’t get very far. This is not a judgment about your inadequacy, or a suggestion that the truth can only be obtained from others. According to Zen, you already have everything you need. However… human beings are social creatures, and Zen practice is very demanding. To bring your inner potential to its full fruition requires interaction with other people, particularly with others trying to study and practice the same thing you are.

Ritual and ceremony. Ritual and ceremony are powerful tools for influencing your behavior and accessing your emotions. Rituals engage the body and move you out of an intellectual, discriminative state into a more contemplative, intuitive, and less defended state. Their use is not limited to religion: think of award ceremonies, secular funerals, and even personal rituals you might have in your life. However, ritual and ceremony are usually at their most highly developed and overt in religious settings, and in this sense Zen can be quite religious. The tradition includes some very elaborate and moving ceremonies, as well as countless simple rituals to be performed by individuals, like putting your shoes straight or picking up items with both hands. Once again, however, ritual and ceremony are viewed in Zen as tools – very useful tools, but not inherently sacred. You may end up feeling they are sacred, but this is only because of what they point to or help you access, not because the activities themselves are any more holy or special than feeding your child or brushing your teeth.

Presentation of the sacred. Again, the sacred is something worthy of veneration – that is, worthy of inspiring your respect and awe. All worthwhile religions make presentation of the sacred central to their missions – helping you remember, understand, access, appreciate, honor and manifest it. This is what Huston Smith calls the “more” in his book Why Religion Matters, where he says, “Built into the human makeup is a longing for a ‘more’ that the world of everyday experience cannot requite.” Smith explains that religion has traditionally addressed this longing. The fact that presentation of the sacred is central in Zen is something many people find surprising. Essentially, if you do Zen practice and achieve some of your goals by doing so, that’s great – but if you still miss the sacred, it’s considered quite a shame, so in this sense Zen is quite religious. The “sacred” doesn’t have to be woo-woo, supernatural, or even make you feel overly emotional. You touch it through direct, unfiltered experience of your own human life – and Zen practitioners throughout history have discovered that when you do that, it is impossible not to be inspired with respect and awe. Your morning cup of coffee and encountering traffic on the way to work are both sacred – but how often can you experience them that way?

So, the answer to the question of whether Zen is religious or secular is a classically Zen one: yes and no. You may want to be able to put something into a category and subsequently stop having to think about it so much, but Zen wants you to continue to think and question – so no simple answers here.

About Domyo Burk

Domyo Burk (b. 1971) began Zen practice at Dharma Rain Zen Center (DRZC) in 1996 and was ordained as a Zen monk in 2001 by Gyokuko Carlson Roshi. The first seven years of Domyo’s monastic training were spent in full-time residential practice at DRZC except for a practice period at Tassajara monastery in California and time practicing at Great Vow Zen monastery in Oregon.

6 comments

Broadly put, a religion is a system of meaning, and Zen is certainly that. I can only guess at why anyone would desire to see it as something indefinable. Perhaps seeing is as something beyond religious or secular makes it seem more meaningful.

A system of meaning, such as a religion, has several characteristics which I will now list.

CREATION STORY
The Buddha is the most base creation story in Buddhism, but there are others. Closer to home for the Zen tradition would be Bodhidharma, or even the history of ones own Zen teacher.

CREED
Specific to Zen, as district from other Buddhist traditions, core principles would be things like ‘releasing true nature’ etc.

ICONS
The Buddha of course, but specific to Zen would be things like an ensō in calligraphy.

RITUALS
Zazen itself is a ritual.

NONBELIEVERS
Defining your pagans is important in defining who you are. In Zen this could be someone, for example, who “puts something into a category and subsequently stop having to think about it.”

SACRED WORDS
Zen might see everything as sacred, but let’s face it, some things are more sacred than others. Interestingly, in Zen koans could be interpreted as part of the sacred lexicon.

LEADERS
Zen has a completely hierarchical structure.

To quote the infidel James Whitcomb:

When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.

First, as far as I know Buddhism doesn’t have a creation myth and it seems even more clear that Buddha never claimed to be the origin of the universe. Buddha advised us not to worry too much about how the universe came into being except that there is no start and no end, and that it arises from the mind. Then again old Sid didn’t have a Hubble space telescope to refer to. Anyway these characteristics do not fit the paradigm of a creator or creation myth generally found in religion.

Second, as far as I know, rather than consider EVERYTHING sacred, Zen seems to teach that absolutely NOTHING is sacred. Which I guess explains why there are so many happy campers. If there are two schools on this, I side with the nothing is sacred thing. If you make it sacred you grasp to it.

The other stuff is up for grabs, such as your point about non-believers. Non belief is not a barrier to Zen practice, or to Buddhism in general. Belief is accepted but it’s not required, and everybody gets to test things for themselves. So that departs radically from the common aspects of religion where belief IS the religion, and you’re damned if you don’t agree.

There are of course creeds, symbols, rituals, scriptures, and hierarchies common to other religions. Fortunately even heretical gadflies like myself are tolerated. I practice zazen daily, observe the precepts, but have yet to enter a zendo, take any vows, join a group, or get on board with any kind of mystical mumbo jumbo beyond offering incense, and only that because it smells nice.

…there is no start and no end, and that it [the universe] arises from the mind.

Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like an answer to me.

The point about sacred is that there are some things in Zen which are clearly sacred and other things which are not, just like in any religion. Is for instance the Roman Catholic Bible considered sacred in Zen? Perhaps when speaking from the absolute, Zen teachers express their deep respect and reverence for the truth of Christian doctrine, but I’ve never seen or heard of such a display.

Regarding nonbelievers, religious practitioners distinguish themselves by pointing out what they are not. This can have the effect of enhancing meaning, and offering meaning is essentially what religion is about. We all have beliefs.

even heretical gadflies like myself are tolerated. I practice zazen daily, observe the precepts, but have yet to enter a zendo, take any vows, join a group, or get on board with any kind of mystical mumbo jumbo beyond offering incense, and only that because it smells nice.

Lol, try joining a Zen group and see how long your heretical gadfly ways are tolerated.

I try not to join any kind of group, so Zen is not unique in that. However, I have a lot of contact with people in the Zen community and while there is often disagreement and even open rejection of my “views” it is not to the extent of rejecting my presence within the Zen community. So instead of hypotheticals about what might happen if, why not enlarge upon your direct experience of having “outside” views met with intolerance. I have by the way found the pure land folks to tend toward reactionary, something which is refreshing absent in Zen. This is not to stir doctrinal disputes, it is only an observation.

No of course the Bible is not sacred in Zen. But what is? The _experience_ of sacredness is distinct from the _object_ of sacredness or veneration observed in religion. Buddha’s finger bone was paraded around at various times and I feel lucky to have been able to see its container, because it connects me with my inner practice, but I don’t revere the object or find it sacred of itself.

To deepen the inquiry, Thich Nhat Hanh frequently mentions Christianity and one of his teachings is that if Christ is the way we experience compassion and realize it in our lives, then this is no different than Avalokitesvara. Raised in a Western, Christian-oriented world it might be said that Zen practice would be best to focus on Christ when contemplating the nature of compassion, simply because it is the most direct and identifiable manifestation. Also, in a different vein, the respect for other religions found in Zen might be considered a cornerstone of practice. Thomas Merton, the Catholic meditation teacher, is very much Zen. St. John of the Cross likewise.

As far as the apophatic approach to religious practice (defining what is by what it is not) this is found in all religions, it’s true. The Heart Sutra is a perfect example of how this works in Buddhism, but when looking into it there is nothing that excludes other religions or defines Buddhism by contrast with other faiths. Our beliefs certainly can be emboldened by reifying them as separate from other faiths. In my practice, I don’t feel the need to define my spirituality in order to cultivate it. Thus I consider it distinct from religion: I am highly devout, but also highly irreligious.

I try not to join any kind of group, so Zen is not unique in that. However, I have a lot of contact with people in the Zen community and while there is often disagreement and even open rejection of my “views” it is not to the extent of rejecting my presence within the Zen community. So instead of hypotheticals about what might happen if, why not enlarge upon your direct experience of having “outside” views met with intolerance.

People don’t like to be looked at critically, Red Shift, particularly in hierarchical based groups. Zen groups, at least the traditional ones, are hierarchical in nature. This isn’t a hypothesis, it’s just the way people are. It is true on any hierarchical group, but perhaps especially religious groups.

We can see the truth of this right here in this website. Just notice how other views, like the views we have expressed in these comments, are met by the Zen authors or ‘authorities’. They are typically ignored or not responded to. Very seldom is there a response to “outside” views, and sometimes when there is a response it would have been infinitely better had there not been one. For example see the comment section here: http://sweepingzen.com/unethical-practices/

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

About Domyo Burk

Domyo Burk (b. 1971) began Zen practice at Dharma Rain Zen Center (DRZC) in 1996 and was ordained as a Zen monk in 2001 by Gyokuko Carlson Roshi. The first seven years of Domyo’s monastic training were spent in full-time residential practice at DRZC except for a practice period at Tassajara monastery in California and time practicing at Great Vow Zen monastery in Oregon.

About Sweeping Zen

Established in 2009 as a grassroots initiative, Sweeping Zen is a digital archive of information on Zen Buddhism. Featuring in-depth interviews, an extensive database of biographies, news, articles, podcasts, teacher blogs, events, directories and more, this site is dedicated to offering the public a range of views in the sphere of Zen Buddhist thought. We are also endeavoring to continue creating lineage charts for all Western Zen lines, doing our own small part in advancing historical documentation on this fabulous import of an ancient tradition. Come on in with a tea or coffee. You're always bound to find something new.

Sweeping Zen is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com. Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.